MOHINDER JUNEJA Vs. M T N L

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgement; CW No.5609/2001 and CM. 5606/2001 are being disposed of. Aforesaid two writ petitions have been filed by Mr.Mohinder Juneja and his wife Mrs.Lata Juneja. Petitioners are aggrieved by the disconnection of their telephone connections bearing numbers 5103010 and 5447787. These telephones have been disconnected on account of outstandings of Mr.Vijay Juneja, who happens to be the brother of Mr.Mohender Juneja and brother-in-law of Mrs.Lata Juneja.

(2.) Briefly stated, Case of the petitioners is that they reside at Premises No.53/41, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. The father of Mr.Mohinder Juneja had built four independent flats/units in the property and gifted one to the petitioner Mr.Mohender Juneja. Other units are in the possession of other 3 brothers. Petitioners case is that each of the units is an independent one with separate water, electricity and other facilities. Petitioner No.1 and his brothers live independently and do not have a common kitchen. Petitioners have nothing to do either with the business or with the use of telephone of the defaulter Mr.Vijay Juneja and Mr.H.Sanjiv Chawla. Petitioners also state that they have no interest either as a partner or otherwise in the business and concerns of Mr.Vijay Juneja. Petitioners therefore could not be made liable simply on the basis that defaulter is the brother of the petitioners.

(3.) I have heard Mr.Ravi Sikri, counsel for the respondents in defence of the petition. He submits that since the municipal address of the premises given was 53/41, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi and the defaulter was petitioner's brother, MTNL perhaps proceeded on the basis that telephones were installed in one premises and were in common use. This coupled with the relationship between the parties, led the department to proceed with disconnection of telephones in the name of petitioners for default by Mr.Vijay Juneja. Besides, he submits that at one stage during the course of the proceedings in the writ petition, petitioner Mohinder Juneja had offered to pay the sum of Rs.20,000.00 towards discharging the liability in respect of Vijay Juneja's telephone but did not ultimately pay. In my view this cannot be used as a plea to justify the disconnection of petitioners telephones. May be the petitioners in their anxiety to have the connection restored would have offered to pay the amount. However, the same does not give any right to the respondents MTNL unless they can prima facie show commonality of user. Respondents before they wish to invoke rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules to disconnect a subscriber's telephone on account of non payment of telephone charges must prima facie satisfy themselves that there is either commonality of user or the person whose telephone is disconnected has an access to the defaulting telephone or otherwise there is common business interest or shareholding between the parties. In the instant case, these elements are missing. It was incumbent upon MTNL to have thoroughly investigated the matter before proceeding to disconnect the petitioner's telephone.